On reincarnation of God

[citizenofdoom]

Oh, I don't believe anyone is quite like me. And not in a superior way. Just a run-of-the-mill everyone has a story kind of way

Nah, strong atheism is not superior.
Chill, it's your beliefs and beliefs change over time.
I still believe there is probably no deity (around 99.999%).
But 0.001% is what it takes for me to be a weak atheist.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

that is correct. sadly, i don't see much tv any longer. grinding out high levels of ability in eu 4, hoi 4, dominions 5, dungeon crawl stone soup, battle brothers (i am not yet a skilled player in BB, learning that now) etc over the past decade or so has cut into the things i watch otherwise. it's a trade i took willingly, i have a lot of fun going through the learning process and mastering games. but it does mean i sacrifice alternative choices.

i will take your word that this is in character for him, and an impressive character in a way lol.

It was a show that ran for several seasons in the '90s: Sliders.

The first two seasons were really good. The third season marked the beginning of turning it into crap. John Rhys-Davies quit and his character was killed off. I watched the entire series, but by the end it was just to see if they ever made it back to their original world. I don't even remember if they did or not, and couldn't care less.

Professor Arturo was my favorite character, though.

Your own atheism religion depends on what you consider moral, what your beliefs are, what your worldview is, what your prediction of future maybe(Big Rip, Big Crunch, Big Slurp,...)
It also depends on your belief of what will happen when you die.
You worship whatever make/lead your enlightenment.
You are very likely to worship yourself or science or set theory or anything/anyone.
Ever you thought that the only existence you can feel and verify is having sentience is only you?
I'm not you, so I can't know what you worship.
I'm not you, so I can't know what specific kind of atheism you are practicing.
Is it weak-atheism or strong-atheism?
Is your own belief include the creation of the World? Like before Big Bang, which is very likely to be true and likely to be universally accepted by almost everyone. Before that is the realm of religion, you can theorize whatever things till Big Bang.
Is your own belief include some future salvation?
What's your belief of death?
Do you believe in fate or your job/role in this world?
I don't know mate. It's too hard for anyone to guess the exact statements of your atheism.
Atheism is broader than you might think.
Imagine you put some quantum thing and theorize about quarks that involving in the sentience thinking process. No one can actually guess if you worship some specific properties of quarks or not.
And I believe religion doesn't require a God or something to worship.
My belief could be true because there is no scholarly consensus over what precisely constitutes a religion.
In contrast, to set theory, there is no formal definition of religion.
So you can define your own definition according to your belief.

So imagine if you haven't read my message above, if I tell you that I'm an atheist, what do I worship?
Can you ever guess it once was "future generations of humans"?

Read the part I bolded, and review what I said early on in the thread. Atheism is not a religion.

By insisting it is, you've done what others have done, and decided that you know more about what I think than I do (read the red part of my sig; I take this social faux pas very seriously).

Because you did not respect my position when I made it clear in my first post in this thread, you and I are done.

 

[Farm Boy]

One of the indignities of atheism is that it winds up spending so much time not advancing arguments of what it does believe in(well, sure they do, but then it's off topic of atheism) but instead making statements of disavowal of what other people have managed to find purposeful in this ****ed-up painful life.

"Not adequately good enough for me." Well, that's nice. You're* very special.

*general you

 

[Moff Jerjerrod]

Valka I hope you didn't feel insulted when I gave that example about parents and kids. I admit I was assuming a normal relationship and should have stated that. In any case I truly apologize.

So regarding stories, fact finding, historical records, etc. What if concrete evidence and or records were produced? Then what? Would that really change your mind regarding religion? Be honest.

The mind will always be at war with the heart. What's easy for the mind to reject may be totally acceptable to the heart. It may be necessary to change your heart in order to see things differently. It may also be necessary to change your mind. Only when the mind and the heart are at balance will one be able to truly see if they want to believe all this stuff or not.

 

[Samson]

One of the indignities of atheism is that it winds up spending so much time not advancing arguments of what it does believe in(well, sure they do, but then it's off topic of atheism) but instead making statements of disavowal of what other people have managed to find purposeful in this ****ed-up painful life.

This is not very unique to atheists though.

 

[Farm Boy]

Of course not. But I loop them in universally and tend to focus on similarities between them and religious folk. Which is sort of the argument, such as it is.

 

[Gorbles]

We don't need to believe in anything. Generally-speaking. We individually may have a need to, or find cause to, and that shouldn't be stigmatised (which is where New Atheism in particular, but also other advocates, make mistakes). But the idea that atheism doesn't advance whatever argument is kinda missing the point.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

there's no scholarly consensus about what it means to be a "religion"

the same could be said for a huge number of words. take common word used in gaming "exploit". most people don't know what it means, even as they use it, because the rationale they give isn't consistent with their own stated position about game mechanics generally. there sure as heck isn't a "scholarly consensus" for what constitutes "exploit" either.

yet, there are still many things we can confidently rule out as gaming exploits. including anything that isn't doable within the game, and (for the word to even potentially have meaning) things that the developers put in and work exactly as they intended.

framing atheism as a "religion" makes the word "religion" less meaningful. it's like calling a chair religion, despite that when people think of religions, they would not normally think "islam, hindu, christianity, and chair", nor would they expect others to do that.

you are a strong atheist. you believe all atheists are as strong as you are

i do not believe that, for any sense of the word "strong". i also do not believe i'm the "strongest atheist" in any sense of the word. there are some uses of "strong" where i wish it were true though.

But 0.001% is what it takes for me to be a weak atheist.

• i'm not convinced this is your real probability estimate, like for example if you were to bet/wager on it i will guess your betting pattern would be different, as would your lifestyle. you're giving better-than-lotto-ticket odds here, with a presumed payout much higher than lotto ticket rewards. though maybe you really are an avid church-goer acting out the tenets of a religion in hopes of drawing that ticket. i don't know you personally.
  
• is this different from your probability estimate to find a goblin den on irl earth during your lifetime? if it's different, why is it different?
  • side note: one could make a reasonable case that a goblin den, however unlikely, is more likely lol. mostly because of the remote chance that humanity comes to a close-enough consensus to what constitutes a "goblin" and then creates them. close enough to 0 chance, but i'm not convinced that it's equal or lower to whatever is implied by "existing outside reality".
• if this is your probability estimate for things you generally don't to expect actually exist, why privilege what you more or less admit is one fantasy element per your probability estimates vs another?

One of the indignities of atheism is that it winds up spending so much time not advancing arguments of what it does believe in

unfortunately, that's because valka's complaint is often appropriate. it is pretty common to have beliefs of some kind projected onto us, and when that happens it takes non-trivial effort to get rid of that first, so conversation/discussion can even start.

as for believing in, there is usually an implication of believing in empirical evidence and disregarding/rejecting assertions that cannot produce any empirical evidence/consequences. atheist belief tends to be based on their model of reality. the better it is, the more likely future events conform to how they anticipated they'd be. doing that is pretty hard though, so the accuracy isn't as high as one might like.

at least, that's what i wish it were.

there are also the unfortunate associations like "church of woke" or other non-empirical belief structures (like communism) that also happen to not believe in traditional religious gods. i thus often spend some time distancing myself from those, too, when i label myself atheist in conversation. i would prefer humanity be capable of rejecting non-falsifiable claims generally, but it doesn't look like it's possible. at least not without using means that a) don't exist yet and b) i don't want to see used if they become possible (altering brains directly in some way, to be consistent with some ruling class design...any form of this at scale is a potentially species ending catastrophe and i trust nobody with that power, including myself...if this becomes possible and starts being used, it threatens world war with a scale/goal that make the first two look nice).

 

[Farm Boy]

it is pretty common to have beliefs of some kind projected onto us, and when that happens it takes non-trivial effort to get rid of that first, so conversation/discussion can even start.

Oh no, anything but that.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Oh no, anything but that.

i know, i know. pretty much any model gets stuck with that. but if you're going to point out relative time spent arguing against something rather than for something...well...this is why.

 

[Farm Boy]

It was phrased as an indignity for a reason. It's pretty much the essence of the classification. You'll notice you get far less pushback when arguing for star stuff. That, at least, still builds people up. Fundamentally.

 

[El_Machinae]

So regarding stories, fact finding, historical records, etc. What if concrete evidence and or records were produced? Then what? Would that really change your mind regarding religion? Be honest.

Keep in mind, the stories of "evidence" in the Bible are only describing more powerful entities. But the spread between a more powerful entity and God is just as much as between us and God. In other words, infinite.

There is very little described in the Bible that can't also be easily explained as done by a mischievous Genie. Just a supernatural powerful entity. Nothing close to what we think God is

 

[citizenofdoom]

framing atheism as a "religion" makes the word "religion" less meaningful

yeah, u r right. atheism is too broad and diverse to be classified as a religion.
it's like human has three ethnics: "north californian, south californian, and others"
atheism should be represented as a family of beliefs, consisting of religious ones and non-religious ones.
so this is what i meant: saying atheism as a "religion" is overestimating the power of the word "religion" and underestimating the other one - atheism.

i do not believe that, for any sense of the word "strong". i also do not believe i'm the "strongest atheist" in any sense of the word. there are some uses of "strong" where i wish it were true though.

It's just a definition of strong atheism.
Strong Atheism vs. Weak Atheism (learnreligions.com)
i think i can't understand strong & weak <insert something> too. like strongly connected graph, why they use the word "strong", there are many choices of words.

i'm not convinced this is your real probability estimate

ofc it's not my exact probability estimate, i think its not even close. its just my word that i still believe "god might exists" with a small chance. probability given the information i received for my whole life.
to truly estimate it, would take a great effort tho. like need to sample out the people around me ... too tired to do such things.
but the pros of "i believe something i write" is that i just write some arbitrary number, and believe that its true. it doesn't hurt anyway.

if this is your probability estimate for things you generally don't to expect actually exist, why privilege what you more or less admit is one fantasy element per your probability estimates vs another?

to prepare my mind if it happens to be true. if god is proved to be existed, then i will adapt to the change.
i can't cling to my model of the world and self-blind my eyes from the truth.
the main reason still, my recent reasoning process leads to my belief of "if god has unlimited power, god must be a criminal against humanity", i believe if god exists, god must be reasonable, must have his own reason to create the world. and believing if god exists, this limited world should be the best world god ever could create for all sentiences inside it. the other way of thinking probably makes humans feel like worthless asf, so i not gonna buy it. it pushes me further to the side of nontheism. regardless how far it push me to non-theism, the possibility of god existence is still there. i have many decades to develop my religious belief so, yeah. my current trend of developing religious beliefs is to moralize my actions and motivate my mind.
----------------------
btw, religion is a human invention that boosts our motivation and faith in some aspects.
someone like me would just take beliefs that are most beneficial to me in a specific time.
so i think that my atheist belief advancing through time. it will get more complexity in the future, ig?
i believe my belief of "believing in future generations" is common among everyone on Earth.
proof is existence of people who accept higher energy price to reduce fossil fuel usage for next generation's future.
if people not believing in future generations, they should have just burnt everything for their lovely luxury consumerist life.
the difference is that i actually worship them, that i believe god whatever exists or not, will not save me but they can.
(at least my hypothetical next generation(if i am successful in getting a wife(if not i gonna adopt orphans anyway )) will have to teach his dad how to use high tech devices , saving me from tech blindness)

 

[Sarin]

Keep in mind, the stories of "evidence" in the Bible are only describing more powerful entities. But the spread between a more powerful entity and God is just as much as between us and God. In other words, infinite.

There is very little described in the Bible that can't also be easily explained as done by a mischievous Genie. Just a supernatural powerful entity. Nothing close to what we think God is

Or just aliens playing some pranks. I'd be surprised if there wasn't a species like Umgah from Star Control II somewhere out there.

 

[Narz]

One of the indignities of atheism is that it winds up spending so much time not advancing arguments of what it does believe in(well, sure they do, but then it's off topic of atheism) but instead making statements of disavowal of what other people have managed to find purposeful in this ****ed-up painful life.

"Not adequately good enough for me." Well, that's nice. You're* very special.

*general you

If deep down religious people didn't know their beliefs were stupid as hell it wouldn't bother them.

You did sum up why most people are atheists I think. Religious explanations are simply not good enough. Someone who finds them good enough is someone I cannot really relate with on a fundamental level. Either their fooling theirself or they really believe they have the answers and either way this is someone I cannot trust (they fail either in benevolence or competence, most likely both).

 

[Farm Boy]

Yes, you're a great unique snowflake. Quite beautiful in your fashion.

 

[Narz]

Yes, you're a great unique snowflake. Quite beautiful in your fashion.

I'm not actually. Areligious are the fastest growing group.

 

[Farm Boy]

Yeah, but I'm not pretending I'm not complimenting you, specifically. Now am I?

 

[Edmund Ironside]

The Atlanteologist thread is why I'm reluctant to invest much time in videos unless they were made by real scholars instead of people just making stuff up with no credible sources to back it.

I wasn't expecting you (or anyone else for that matter) to watch the videos tbh. I rarely watch videos other people post on here. We all have a finite time on this Earth and I didn't want to spend an hour and a half watching the videos again, noting down the main talking points and the sources linked to them just for you to be unmoved by them. There are some interesting linguistic features and tangential archeology. However I suspect you would be wanting an independent source material for the Exodus, like there is for Assyrian's dispersement of the Hebrews, or like there is for the exile under Babylonians. Sadly the Egyptians have not provided us with this. Either because it did not happen, was not significant enough for them to record, or because we have simply not discovered it yet. Interestingly the Bible and the Egyptians do sometimes support each other, for example they are the only 2 sources we have for the Philistines (and other sea people).

The videos are well sourced (they both list their sources as they progress), but again unless you are interested in the evidence we have for Jesus existing (plentiful) or exploration into what evidence there is for the Exodus occurring (less plentiful) it is probably not worth your time.

As for the high ground? People who die from crucifixion don't come back 3 days later unless they somehow didn't die in the first place. I've looked into the physical effects of being crucified and it's pretty brutal.

Well if you change the subject I'm not going to have the high ground! Perhaps I misunderstood what you and Narz were asking.
I was merely trying to show how extensive the documentation for Jesus is, and how relatively contemporary it is compared to many other historical figures of the ancient and medieval times. For example Zoroaster the founder of Zoroastrianism we have almost no documentation for at all.

Bringing people back from the dead? Sorry, no. Not unless they were mistakenly declared dead in the first place. Water/wine, loaves/fishes? Do your videos explain those in any way not requiring the word "miracle"?

They do not, not what they are about (see above about me misunderstanding what you were asking for).

 

[Edmund Ironside]

Someone who finds them good enough is someone I cannot really relate with on a fundamental level. Either their fooling theirself or they really believe they have the answers and either way this is someone I cannot trust

Does this stop you have any form of meaningful friendships (plutonic or romantic) with someone who is religious?